Twenty years separate the Ritchie and Rocky Bennett inquiries. Each
inquiry investigated the death of a black man in a psychiatric hospital.
But had governments implemented Ritchie recommendations, Rocky Bennett
inquiry might not have been necessary.

Similarly, if John Reid, the health minister, implements Bennett
recommendations, the need for future inquiries into deaths of black
people in psychiatric hospitals might not arise.

The trouble is Reid, like his predecessors, will resist implementing
Bennett recommendations.

Campaigners for changes in the way mental health patients are treated
can overcome Reid’s resistance only by changing the focus of
their campaign.

Before seeing how campaigners can over Reid’s resistance, let
us look at the circumstances that give rise to the Ritchie and Bennett
inquiries.

Michael Martin, 22, had no criminal record when doctors sectioned
him under the Mental Health Act 1959. They sent him to Broadmoor Norfolk
House, a hospital for the “criminally insane” in November
1979 (Sivanandan 1991:41).

In July 1984, Michael died after a violent struggle with six nurses.
He choked own his vomit (Sivanandan 1991:51).

A coroner court returned a verdict of “accidental death aggravated
by lack of care” in October 1984.

The post mortem, however, had revealed Michael’s body was imprinted
with signs of “lack of care” indicative of, if not murder
then, manslaughter. For example, the bruising around his neck was
consistent with a neck hold, which might have prevented the vomit
from escaping in the usual way. And as a result, he choked on it.

The Ritchie inquiry into Michael’s death rejected the use of
neck holds as a method of restraint. It found that the “use
of a neck hold [on Michael] was dangerous and should not have happened”.
Furthermore, the neck hold “caused deep and extensive bruising
and may have contributed to [Michael] vomiting and aspiration.”

Ritchie recommended nursing staff should be given “ ‘compulsory
and regular training in control and restraint techniques’”
(Sivanandan 1991:41).

As to the use of force when restraining patients, Ritchie recommended,
“it should be the minimum required to control the violence”
(Sivanandan 1991:41).

Twenty years on the restraint method used by nursing staff featured
in the death of David Rocky Bennett at Norvic Clinic, Norfolk, on
October 31,1998.

During “a big scuffle”, five nursing staff restrained
Rocky by pinning him to the floor. In spite of him complaining that
he could not breathe, staff continued restraining him. They released
him when he had stopped breathing. He was dead.

Restraint in a “prone position” was a contributory factor
in him dying.

The period of restraint was also a causal factor of death according
to Dr Harrison, who carried out the post mortem examinations. He said
the period of restraint, between fifteen and twenty minutes, was “far
too long”.

Bruising found on his body indicated that maybe he “had been
gripped around the neck” (Blofeld 2003:32).

At his inquest held in May 2001, the jury unanimously decided the
cause of death was “restraint asphyxia”. They returned
the verdict of “accidental death contributed to by neglect”.

Like Ritchie, nursing staff competence and their use of force are
identified by the Rocky Bennett inquiry as areas of particular concern.

Bennett recommends that first-aid and CPR training should be mandatory
(Blofeld 2003:67). Staff should also be aware about the importance
of not “medicating patients outside the limits prescribed by
law” (Blofeld 2003:68).

With regards to restraint, Bennett recommends: “Under no circumstances
should an patient be restrained in a prone position for a longer period
than three minutes” (Blofeld 2003:67).

Why is Reid and nursing unions reluctant to implement Bennett recommendations?
Two reasons are apparent: cost and criminal culpability.

Reid fears the cost of having specialist teams trained in restraint
and control techniques in every secure unit.

While if Reid implements the three-minute restraint limit, the Nursing
and Midwifery Council will fear its members will become culpable for
any breaches of the limit that resulted in patients’ deaths.

Therefore from both Reid and the Council’s prospective the
current ad hoc set up is cost effective, albeit deadly.

Besides ethnic minorities represent a disproportionate number of
patients who die in psychiatric hospitals. Bennett finds “institutional
racism” within the NHS impacts on the quality of treatment ethnic
minority patients receive.

Race is a factor that diminishes any urgency for reforms. Reid dismisses
the existence of “this festering abscess [racism], which is
at present a blot upon the good name of the NHS” (Blofeld 2003:58).

Sashi Sashidharan, a consultant psychiatric on the Bennett inquiry,
said: “We can’t leave it to the department [of health]
any more. According to Dr Joanna Bennett, Rocky sister, “it’s
a disgrace lessons have not still been learned” (2).

It is apparent faith in Reid’s willingness to carry out reforms
is spent.

What is to be done to force Reid’s hand? First, campaigners
seeking reforms in the treatment of mental health patients should
shift the focus of their campaign from national to international.

Reid does not react to calls for reforms because deaths in psychiatric
hospital do not pose a political threat to the government. That is
because those dying are black. And the government has done much to
neutralize any possibility of public sympathy by dehumanizing blacks.

Anyone wanting to see how the government dehumanizes blacks need
look no further than to the content of speeches made by David Blunkett,
the home secretary. Blunkett revels in inciting racial hatred by characterizing
ethnic minorities and asylum seekers as criminals. Consequently, British
race relations are akin to apartheid: uk-apartheid.

The government promotes uk-apartheid by suppressing information about
the scale of racism in the NHS. For three years the Department of
Health has “buried” a Lemos & Crane survey that revealed
abuse and racial harassment of ethnic minority staff by their colleagues
and patients (3).

Confronted by uk-apartheid, anyone seeking national support for reforms
engages in an act of futility. The 1960s American civil rights movement
and South African anti-apartheid struggle have shown that it is only
when campaigners have international support that national governments
feel shame about their racist practice.

The United Nations has been the forum in which the persecuted have
found an international platform on which to campaign for national
reforms. The ANC used the UN to good effect in its struggle to end
apartheid (Bunting 1986: 528; Barber 1999:163).

Rather than petition Messieurs Blair, Blunkett and Reid, campaigners
would do better to petition the European Union and UN. It is via these
organizations Blair lies to the international community about British
liberal democracy and respect for human rights.

Campaigners should expose Blair’s lies. They must tell the international
community about the extent to which racism impacts on the human rights
of ethnic minorities in Britain.

The world should know deaths in psychiatric hospitals are the products
of successive governments failure to implement recommended reforms.

It is only by mobilizing international opinion against British domestic
human right violations will reforms stand any chance of happening.

Twenty years is too long for the body count to keep rising without
action to end the primary cause of deaths in psychiatric hospitals:
state sponsored racism. It is too long to campaign for reforms in
vain.

A change has got to come: the campaign for reforms must be internationalized
by petitioning the European Union and United Nations.

“Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of
racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood…Now is the
time to make justice a reality” (Martin Luther King).